## Facts

- David Magadini, a homeless man in his late sixties, was subject to “no trespass” orders for three privately owned properties in downtown Great Barrington, Massachusetts: Barrington House, Castle Street, and SoCo Creamery.
- In 2014, police encountered Magadini in lobbies, hallways, and other common areas of those buildings while the no-trespass orders were in effect.
- He was charged with seven counts of criminal trespass based on seven separate incidents: five between February and March 2014, one on April 8, 2014, and one on June 10, 2014.
- Magadini asserted he entered the buildings during cold weather to avoid exposure to extreme outdoor temperatures and lacked effective lawful shelter options.
- Before trial and again during the charge conference, Magadini requested a jury instruction on the common-law defense of necessity; the trial judge denied the request.
- A jury convicted Magadini on all seven counts, and the court imposed concurrent thirty-day sentences. The case proceeded on direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether Magadini produced sufficient evidence to require a jury instruction on the common-law defense of necessity for the trespass charges, particularly those occurring in winter and early spring.
2. Whether the trial court’s other challenged rulings (limits on cross-examination, alleged prosecutorial misstatements, and denial of a required finding on the April 8 charge) required reversal or guidance on remand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial judge prejudicially erred by refusing a necessity instruction on the six trespass counts arising from February through April 2014.
- The court vacated the first six convictions and remanded those counts for a new trial.
- The court held Magadini failed to satisfy the foundational requirements for a necessity instruction for the June 10, 2014 incident.
- The court affirmed the seventh conviction (June 10, 2014).
- The court otherwise found no reversible error beyond the necessity-instruction issue and provided limited guidance for retrial.

## Legal Principles

- Necessity is a Massachusetts common-law justification defense; a defendant is entitled to an instruction when evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, could permit a reasonable jury to find:
  - a clear and imminent danger (not speculative);
  - a reasonable expectation that the criminal act would directly abate the danger;
  - no effective legal alternative; and
  - no legislative preclusion of the defense by a clear policy choice.
- “Clear and imminent danger” may be shown where a homeless defendant faces severe winter conditions creating a serious risk of harm from exposure.
- The “no effective legal alternative” element must be evaluated based on the defendant’s immediate and realistic options at the time, not on theoretical or impractical possibilities.
- Erroneous denial of a warranted necessity instruction is prejudicial because necessity, if accepted, is a complete justification leading to acquittal.
- When the weather conditions do not present an imminent exposure-related danger (as on the early-summer incident), the necessity instruction may be properly denied.

## Conclusion

The court required a necessity-defense instruction for trespass charges arising from winter and early-spring entries by a homeless defendant where evidence supported imminent danger from extreme cold and lack of realistic lawful alternatives, vacating six convictions for retrial, but affirmed a summer trespass conviction where the necessity foundation was not met.


Commonwealth v. Magadini, 474 Mass. 593 (2016)